to remember back to the 1980's and the first of the iran iraq war and the motivations for iran starting its clandestine effort to enrich uranium and acquire other capable stupidest nuclear weapons cannot have a very, very insecure times for iraq war was being attacked by chemical weapons on missiles by saddam hussein's iraq and basically the international community did nothing to respond. in fact, denied the charges that iran was making that iraq was making these attacks were a number of years. we can go through the history they are and the different ways of complicity menace. but the general argument is if you don't attend to states with capabilities when their security interests are very, very challenged, and you don't respect the security interests, don't expect them to stand still. they will react you can in many ways, what we're dealing with now is a reaction to that. is it too little too late? another element in the title. well, i think it depends on the gun whom were referring to them what the problem is. is it too little too late to do with iran? i'll say somewhere. i would say

the same territory. that's my definition of a civil war. and the talk of an enemy invites that kind of thing and that's fine. and whether we should be having won the wars wars in afghanistad iraq, whether we should continue. it's a fine policy -- reasonable people can talk about this. those wars will come to an end. the point that general keane was making, there's the privatization of violence by small groups with more and more power to them. this problem is not going to come to an end. not going to come to an end. there is too many crazy people in the world. and this problem shouldn't -- has to be managed, with strategic use of force, but my plea is that -- i'm a pragmatist in the sense that it's much more important to be clear about the distinct character of the different problems, and design structures to respond to these different problems. my idea is, i will give you some ideas. some have better ideas. just we can't confuse them all as special cases of the same thing called war. okay. >> get back to the question inch both countries, iraq and afghanistan, the political objective is a stable, secure country and environment where the military is capable -- military and polic

the civil war? and do you, the question about -- usage as we have been arresting people in afghanistan and iraq. how do you defined in their quest do you define them as prisoners of war? or simply detainees? and in which law do you keep them arrested? >> thank you for that. let's take the last one because that is an interesting question. >> the detainees in afghanistan and iraq prisoners of war. >> it depends on if they can be transitioned into the afghan or afghan system. i haven't been in afghanistan for a couple of years i don't how it's evolving a. i know the goal though is whenever there is a security detainee taken into custody to develop enough evidence so that they can stand up based on afghan wall, and the idea is to transition as many of these detainees as possible into the afghan system as much as they can bear it. because one of the problems obviously it is in a counterinsurgency effort, in an insurgency, the enemy targeted judges, targets the legal system. and so all of the institutions of the afghan government are under some degree of the rest. and so it depends on really the maturi

projecting power and influence as we see in iraq, as you can see in afghanistan and syria and lots of other places. one of the big arguments of who won the iraq war was iraq. they are pushing so you need to be doing these things. in any case whether they get nuclear weapons or not, i think the list that greg offered is obviously a good place to start. let me close there. with perhaps, the boring you know, kind of endorsement of my colleagues. basic policy recommendations. [applause] >> thank you, george. at this point, when i speak, we're going to have a few slides. not many. so greg, if you could get your vision. thank you. good afternoon. they say picture can tell 1,000 words. so as pictures go, i particularly like this one. it is the 1999 visit by so you hadi defense minister prince -- to the pakistani uranium enrichment camp outside islamabad. 11 years on, he is now the crown peninsula. technology china, iran, libya and north korea. the extent to which he did this, as a so-called rogue agent is disputed. he claims he did it. there are also allegations that he offered nuclear technology to iraq, egypt and syria. we can only see his legs, was p

now you could argue the way the iraq war turned in 2004/2005 took the threat away because the iranians said the u.s. is losing. .. activities to actually make nuclear weapons is a distinct line. it has -- it has some meanings. and that one still hasn't been lost in part because i think the iranian government may have its own uncertainties about the cost and benefits of doing that. and that's in part because going from zero nuclear weapons to one or two or three or four is very, very dangerous. a couple of nuclear weapons don't do you much good if you're a country like iran. but they can get you in a lot of trouble. because you use one or two. you destroy anybody but you guarantee counter-action that can destroy you. you have questions would you get caught in the act and lose that capability but invite kind of massive response? so it's a very precarious position. that they may choose at least -- or may not have made up their mind yet that they want to have. and as the ambassador said is it too late to detain. probably not. i remember being in a debate with patrick clauson up in new york

the fall of 2005, nearly three years into the war, haditha was war-torn, and sunni insurgents were in complete control. >> insurgent traffic of foreign fighters, fighters from syria, from places outside of iraq, came through the haditha triad and then down into points south and east like fallujah and on into baghdad. >> narrator: control of haditha was vital in order to protect a massive dam that provided electricity to all of anbar province. to retake haditha, the marine corps sent in some of its most battle-hardened men, kilo company, from the legendary third battalion, first marines-- the thundering third. >> the 3-1's one of the most decorated battalions in the marine corps. their history goes on back through vietnam, korea, world war ii; all the major conflicts that this country's been in, the 3-1's been involved in. >> narrator: iraq was no different. barely a year before they were sent to haditha, kilo company had taken another city back from insurgents in the most intense urban combat marines had faced since vietnam, the second battle of fallujah. >> fallujah was like the o.k. corral, the wild, wild west. >> when i first joined the marine corps, that's what i thought i'd do as a mari

world war ii paratrooper jumped in normandy i fought until the end hillary clinton has not president today because she voted for the iraqcover your ass both because she was talking running for president she showed exactly what we have four politicians debated is called -- care about getting elected she did not care she was voting to send soldiers to be killed or maimed for life for did not care what would happen to our treasury. she cared about precluding the republicans from attackinger for being soft on terror or not voting for the war. today mrs. five she is not president today and deserves it. originally i was a supporter of her until she cast in the late political cover your ass vote. thank you to one i would certainly allow and every politician's career there are political considerations there is no way to prove her motivation that was back before she was running for reelection even to the senate but what i will say from her advisers, she is naturally fairly hawkish on defense we saw in the book afghanistan review policies she was the advocate of sending in more troops when others were not. maybe it was political

they make those mistakes three al qaeda cannot win in the middle east anymore than they did in iraq so it is a clear lesson for how we deal with the war on terrorism not just iraq and afghanistan but everywhere. >> host: but one of the things i saw at the time back in 2006 was the intelligence, the intelligence was showing clearly that people were planting bombs because they did that as a way to make money and they didn't have enough money or enough jobs and that was one way to go at them. we are going to come upon a break but when we come back the most surprising thing to me in the book, one of the five or six because you actually had some nice words to say about rumsfeld and that rumsfeld ironically may not have been the complete bender had some of us perceive to be in terms of how he was abrupt with military officers ignoring walter council so i think it would be important to elaborate on what level of responsibility dustin of rumsfeld there or not there by his inability to allow this political opening to go forward or was it completely outside of his hands. so when we come back we can pick that up. >> "after words" and several wel

it was in the middle of the iraq war. all these things supposedly made america alienated in this country, were just a few years earlier our embassy had been blown up. 12,000 people showed up and none of them were mad at the united states. they thought we cared whether their children lived or died. i applaud the committee for doing this. let me make just a couple of observations and say something about the bill and make a few very specific recommendations. first, i know what you're going through with the budget. i strongly supported the restoration of pay as you go rules. i understand the dilemma is that you and the congress will face. most of the time i have spent since i left office i have spent working on global health or matters related to it. i understand its importance. for me, as senator kerry was kind enough to mention -- i have always tried to do more with less because when i started less was the order of the day. i would like to talk a little bit about what we tried to do. you talked about reducing the price of a

before the iraq war, "desert storm," james baker called outta reek aziz and says if you use biological or chemical weapons on our troops, we will use everything on you, and they didn't use those particular weapons. secondly, eisenhower, 1953 sent word to the chinese, you stop the war in korea or we take the lid off the weapons we use. we got a truce in six months. third, 1958, war in the taiwan strait, eisenhower says shut it down or it's gonna go up the stairs. in other words, threatening the possible use of atomic weapons, and he made peace all three times. these subtle or hidden threats worked, and he's given up our ambiguity. >> you get the point about ambiguity? he surrendered ambiguity and that's a strategic ambiguity. >> we live in a different world. we don't live in a bipolar world where we worry about some soviet general launching a weapon from mining. we're waried about some terrorist group. what this president is looking for is more certainty, clearer rules, more engagement with countries around the world. that is what this posture review is telegraphing. the purpose of nucl

to remember the 1980s, but iran/iraq war and the motivation for iran starting its clandestine effortto enrich uranium and acquire other capabilities to produce nuclear weapons came out of a very insecure time for iran where it was being attacked by chemical weapons by saddam hussein's in iraq and basically the international community did nothing to respond and denied the charges that iraq was making these attacks for a number of years. when you go through the history and the different ways of complicity. if you don't attend to states with capabilities when their security interests are very challenged and you don't respect those security interests don't expect them to stand still. they will react and in many ways what we are dealing with now is a reaction to that. is it too little too late? another element in the title. depends again on who we are referring to and what the problem is. is it too little too late to deal with iran? many states in the region answering that question if the title is nuclear security in the middle east too little too late are you talking about israel and its

some of my colleagues on the right on this, that people said you shouldn't ask questions about the iraq war and why we are there. if you are in the u.s. senate you are not there to talk about the wisdom of going to war or not. what the heck are you therefore? it's about to go back to the fatah to give your not to ask questions about those, what are you reduced to? absolutely. and if the white house can't defend itself on white it is in iraq will anywhere else, then it will take its lumps. absolutely. broad latitude for people to raise these kinds of questions without any issue of patriotism being raised. >> host: let's get to the subject of education because you mentioned that you and arne duncan spoken together in a few times, and both you were education secretary for reagan. and there's been a major reform movement going on in america that involves common standard so that we all know how well our kids are doing, that involves a little more choice and charter schools and holding teachers accountable. and this seems to be the one area we have done this in new orleans a lot, where we transce

guest: as far as the iraq war goes, mainstream media covered the hell out of it. as far as coverage in the "washington post," or the "new york times" -- god knows i spent a lot of time in iraq writing about these things. what is happening now, is going to affect afghan coverage in the long run and iraq coverage in the short run, most newspapers are shrinking, their foreign coverage. the problem is that advertising has moved to the internet and to young readers do not read newspapers, so newspapers cannot afford any more to cover the way they did cover at the beginning of the iraq war. now, coverage of afghanistan is extremely difficult. however, there was just a big expose a of torture chambers run by the iraqi government. member, the u.s. is on the way out of iraq. in afghanistan, general mcchrystal has a mantra that he repeated over and over that is rolled down through the lower ranks. the message is, if you kill civilians, you are creating more enemies. and that is the message that general david patraeus brought in when he came into iraq -- i'm trying to remembe

i am stunned by the lack of leadership by the iraq war. we had great military leadership in the marine corps who were able to turn some of this around and the colonels and the army were exceptional. of the third civil affairs group and anbar did a miraculous job but at the very top, i think you know, how this goes, there will be years of review inside the military of what went wrong and why if there ought to be civilian reviews of the people who made the decision should be held accountable. >> host: one of the terms common in the military the hot flash your lessons learned i find that to be another oxymoron because we never learn lessons pro never a lesson learned repeated over and over i could be proven wrong but what you layout in your book what happened in 2004 appears to be under way in afghanistan. >> in 2004 the marines and anbar open to the iraqi terrorist to say with the baathist official summer businessmen, they walk into the room it was not. it was the insurgency. they sat but they stayed and they talked over the next year and a h

the republican line. caller: i'd like to have my full time here, please. i'd like to say that our spending goes back to when a prior caller said about the wars in iraq and afghanistan and the whole war on terror. look at the pretext to going into iraq and iran. i had a conference with general joans about this. you have to look at what caused that attack on 9/11. and the resulting. host: james, we understand you are violating one of our rules and so we are going to cut you off. and move on. caller: good morning. last year in august and september, the government had to borrow money to pay social security because not enough was coming in the till. not enough coming in from payroll to supply those people on social security at the time. i'm one of those. i just turned 62. we are going to increase those numbers to around 70 million within the next 10-15 years if the social security trust fund is solve ant, why do they have to baro money to pay the recipient. you cannot put ious in there. it's broke. the system is broke. it's not going to come back. it's going to have a huge -- that doesn't even count medicare and medicaid. it's a pyramid sceem. it will collapse. it has t

the supreme court correspondent. he has reported extensively on the wars in iraq, afghanistan, and he was white house correspondent during the presidency of bill clinton and george w. bush. let's welcome our guest and get excited for a great evening. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, todd. thank you. it's an honor to be here with all of us and with this remarkable panel. it's a great topic too. a topic of abiding interest really to generations of americans. you never know where it's going to turn up. i was in the taxi over here, told the taxi driver, i'm going to national constitution center. he starts driving, a couple of minutes later,

well, if it's a war, i think it's extravagant to think of this as a war, not to say the wars against afghanistan and iraq . those are classic wars. i have no trouble with that. but the -- let's just step back for a second and ask. at what point -- take from 1950 to 2010, where -- what moment was the least dangerous for america? the answer is today. is the least risky. when we had the soviet union, that was a big state. we had members of the communist party who actually were in high positions. there was a conspiracy in the united states by very reputable people, who thought that marxism and lennonism was the way to go. that was much riskier than today. we could have had total nuclear obliteratation. even at the worst of the mccarthy period, in civilian courts. this is -- once we say that the situation today is like abraham lincoln, trying to do hero eck things, in this condition of true national emergency, once we say that this is -- this situation right now is like the situation that franklin roosevelt encountered when some germans came and were dumped off on long island on a submarine and he sees them a

have a heart. >> you don't hear them coming up with fiscal discipline coming up with paying for the iraq war but people who are desperate to pay for food and keeping the electricity on and paying their bills is now the time they decide to be fiscally disciplined and saying things like this will keep people from looking for jobs so let's cut them off and let's sort of leave them as if people aren't looking for jobs. >> ann? >> i think it is very hard to blame the republicans for the massive unemployment numbers now. the democrats control every branch of government. we can't even stop the socialist takeover of healthcare. and if obama really wanted to show some sympathy for the unemployed i think he out to make himself downemployed because that would help most people who don't have a job. what they want isn't a government handout. what they want is a job and the job numbers keep getting worse and worse and worse and there is no question that they will continue to get worse because everything that obama is doing it making it harder for employers to hire. you have an unemployment rate technicall

the media. what you may hear is that the wars in iraq and afghanistan are underreported. you know, there's so much that happens, that the american public doesn't see. so of course, you're going to see a lot of the negative things, obviously the breakdowns in discipline. what you don't see is every day soldiers are taking additional risks to protect civilians. what you don't see every day is the relationships we're building with populations who are so grateful to have this pall of fear and intimidation lifted off of them after life comes back to them, after the brutal murders, enemies are defeated. that's the story that we want to get out. of course, our enemy is very effective aft propaganda and dsm-ii information. the best way to counter that is through media transparency, i think. through our u.s. media and international media, so i'm all for more reporters, more transparency. there's a downside to it obviously. there could be breaches of security, but it's always been my experience with every journalist who i've had the privilege to work with or to host temporarily in

the cold war threat. if we did that, we could save money. under the guise of the iraqar in afghanistan, the defense budget on weapon systems going very high up, and it's not all for those areas. >> the campaign trail is played by the opponent as soft on national security, and look, you know, we're going to be less safe because who wants to cut spending, you know. it starts to get tricky when around the corner the freight train that's coming at you is your election, not this crisis. >> well, the key thing is you can't do only defense. you have to also do the so-called entitlement, social security, medicare, health care, civil service pensions, things like that. if you distribute the pain broadly, what we found in the early 1980s was that people signed on for lengthening the age of retirement, having taxes to cutting some benefits because it saved the larger system. that was social security then. today it's our whole economy that's at stake. >> diane rogers of the concord coalition. he said disperse the pain broadly, but we've been dispersing the wealth without getting a

. >> where were you on the iraq war in 2003? >> what did i think about the invasion? i was not that -- i wasn't completely convinced. nor was i -- did i automatically assume that things could go as badly as they did go, or that information could be as manipulated by the white house as it was, nor was i at all prepared to be -- to see the enormity of money, a cash cow that was created in the middle east, where all of these people made all of that money. i was not ready for that. i was shocked by that. >> going back to that clip in 1996, were you thinking of a wall street crash? did that not surprise you? >> it did not really surprise me, because of the way that the previous scandal that involved one of the bushes. we got into this mess, savings and loan, things turned around, then someone came up with the idea that we can be taxed and everybody get their money back. what fascinated me them was the way that a number of guys on the right actually think. now theoretically there should be no government intervention. they think that the market should be free of the governme

the first was that the iraq war was unnecessary. that it was a mistake, and that it created problems that the united states didn't need to have a. the second argument he made was that the war united states should be fighting was in afghanistan. this is where al qaeda originated, this is where the threat appeared, and this time spent in iraq was taken away from afghanistan. and then he made a third argument, which i think was at the heart of his presidency. which is that bush would not have made the mistake he made had he embedded himself in the traditional american alliance system. had he, instead of charting his own course, engaged our traditional allies, had he not been unilateral but multilateral, he would've had more international support. he would have been more effective even if you chosen to go into iraq, and above all, he would have been guided away from the errors he made. and when he spoke about our traditional lives, obama meant the europeans. and when he meant the europeans, he really meant the germans and the french. and

about the war in iraq, the war in afghanistan, the war on terrorism or what it is being called today. how would the federalist and look at all of that and what hands or better yet what significant messages should we take from their writings regarding those issues? >> i think our federalist, while certainly these issues were in an era on the surface much different from what we are viewing now, i think there are some striking similarities and the fact that even in that era, in the late 18th century when these issues were being debated and our constitution and the bill of rights adopted, our nation faced tremendous threats. to be honest the threats we face back then were much more serious than the threats we face today from somebody who wants to blow up their underwear or what not, as serious as that would be if that occurred. they faced at that time the military might of the greatest power on the face of the earth, the british empire. the bread still harbored some degree of ill will against us for beating them in our war of independence. they wished to do us great harm, try to do us gre

i mean i'm stunned by the lack of leadership during the iraq war. i was really, i was disappointed we had great military leadership in the marine corps, who were able to turn some of this around in the colonels in the army were exceptional. the third civil affairs group in anbar did a miraculous job but at the very top of the military, i think that there is going to be, you know how this goes, there are going to be years of reviews inside the military, what went wrong and why and there ought to be civilian reviews and the people who made the decision that cost america lives up to be held to account. >> host: one of the terms, and in the military, the hot wash or read you do an operation or exercise, lesson learned, i find that to be another oxymoron in shrine forever because we never learn lessons in my experience. it is never a lessons learned. it is an error repeated over and over but maybe, just maybe, i can be proven wrong on that but what we start to see happening in afghanistan because what you layout in your book, could have happened in 2004.

we had a dollars trillion in accumulated debt from the war in iraq -- $8 trillion in accumulated debt from the war in iraq, not paid for, the prescription drug plan, not paid for, bush tax cuts, not paid for -- we already had this debt that had piled up, but nobody noticed because things were going kind of good. that is just like people not noticing that their credit cards were going up or their home equity was going up. when things are going good, you tend not to notice. all of that debt had already accumulated. we, then, had to spend on the recovery act to do all of the things -- unemployment insurance, cobra, essentially helping states to keep their budget afloat so that they did not have to lay off teachers and police officers and firefighters, all of which would the -- all of which would have further depress the economy. we would have recovered a lot later. the investments we are making in things like celgard to help spur economic growth -- we had to spend that. that is only a fraction of our debt. in addition, what happens when the economy goes south is that there are fewer tax

second of all, back in 2006 the largest mass mobilization since the iraq war were the rallies in support of immigration reform. what triggered that is a bill in the house sponsored by sensenbrenner that would have made it a crime to be illegal, or to be out of status. and that really galvanized the movement that sort of coalesced then, and this may be a similar triggering point. >> when you get to the point, congre congresswoman sanchez, who was just here, any partially somewhat tanned person of caucasian origin, who's not from arizona, needs to have their passport with them in another state of this country. it is mind boggling. >> right. it's -- it's just so beyond the pale. i think the other thing that has to happen is it has to be made into a national issue. every single republican needs to be asked whether they support this bill. every single one serving in congress and the senate, this has to be made into a national issue. they have to be put on the defensive to either repudiate it or just to endorse it. >> think of john boehner. i don't want to make too much light of this. but just

that was when memories of 9/11 were still fresh and before the iraq war, when the old adage that politics should stop at the water's edge was back in vogue, an oldie was a goodie. >>> a busy hour ahead including new names on the president's list for the supreme court vacancy and a new effort in the senate to get checks in the mail to unemployed americans. let's begin by exploring the players and the challenges at the big nuclear security summit. for that we go to the magic wall for help, there are 47 nations represented at the big nuclear summit. 38 of those nations sent their head of state or governments, mannering kings, prime ministers and governors. it's the biggest two-day summit since 1945 and it's been designated a national security event which means the secret service takes charge of all the security. as the summit got underway, vice president biden invited some of the participants to his official residence for lunch and used stark and silver language on the agen agenda. >> many of the countries here and just 50 pounds of high purity uranium, smaller than a soccer ball could destr

iraq apparently showing u.s. troops gunning now innocent civilians in broad daylight. journalists and children among those fired upon raising disturbing questions of the conduct of the iraq warad for the united states and its soldiers in afghanistan. the show starts right now. >>> well, again, good afternoon to you. in america today weerks does he recalling with newly-leased and graphic combat video of brutal civilian death in iraq. the website says that the classified video is from an american apa che helicopter. the video we are about to show you is disturbing and graphic. according to the website, this video dates to july 12th, 2007. it shows two men they identified a journalist and his driver. as well as several others. the camera strap is mistaken for a weapon. he and another man thought to be equipped with rpgs and ak-47s. >> five to six individuals with ak-47s. >> we have a guy shooting. >> the journalist, his driver and the other men assemble and the helicopter opens fire. >> line them all up. >> come on. fire. >> the tape identifies approximately eight men as killed in the strikes. including reuters cameraman and his driver. they're apparently assumed to be insurgen

and even though i oppose the iraq war and didn't like to see my tax dollars go there, even though i continue to oppose the escalation of troops in afghanistan and don't want to see my tax dollars going there, i know that the investment i make in paying my taxes is one that i can be proud of as an american. knowing that it goes through title 1 to serve schools across our country that serve at-risk youth, knowing that it goes to help make health care more affordable for american families, knowing that it goes it help that people who are unemployed don't lose their homes and can still put food on their food for -- tables for their families. knowing that our seniors have health care, to know that our young people have health care and we're making it more accessible for people in the middle. to know that we're funding our roads, our bridges, our infrastructure, our arteries of commerce that empower the private sector to produce the prosperity that has made america unique. that's what it means to pay taxes. that's why every year in april when i pay mine i feel that same lump in my throat and in my

way, say that from president bush was being hammered as, you know a demon from hell because of the iraq warngs like that. >> certainly the rhetoric was just as inflammatory on the left for president bush as it is on the right for president obama. so, that seems to me that president clinton is being very selective here and perhaps cynical. what say you? >> well, i don't think so. i think if you look -- i'm sorry. >> bill: go ahead, juan. >> i don't think so. i think that if you look at the record here, a lot of the criticism of president bush was way over the top. in my opinion president bush was sincere man doing his best to protect our country and he has my internal gratitude for that i think there is no question about it. but a lot of the criticism had to do with failure to find weapons of mass destruction. all of that you know that argument. >> bill: sure. >> the thing is there is no precedent. there is nothing like oklahoma city in terms of the left-wing criticism of the president. there is is nothing like militia movement, ruby ridge, all of that, something we know historically has ata

coming up from our republican colleagues when there was discussion about the $1 trillion cost of the wars in afghanistan and iraq, not a penny of which was offset. president bush never asked for any sacrifice from the american people he said we can go out and fight a war and it'll be paid for, sometime when i'm not here. i also don't recall any republicans expressing concern about the new nearly $2 billion spent on two successive tax cuts that went mainly to the wealthy. that's why you'll have to forgive me if i seem frustrated that republicans have miraculously discovered fiscal responsibility. they must have turned over a rock somewhere. when they're talking about unemployment benefit they suddenly worry about paying for it. a measly $18 billion. the president put us $3 trillion in debt, president bush did, and now they're worried about $18 billion. they were happy to help their president turn the biggest surplus in our nation's history into the biggest deficit in our nation's history, but now, when it comes to helping unemployed workers and their family the senate republicans say, we just can't afford to do i

the spending is somehow unforeseen. in a little more than a year, the war in afghanistan will beginning its second decade, and the war in iraqort this amendment regardless of whether they support or oppose these wars. we all agree on the need to get our fiscal house in order. i want to thank you for your staffs help in drafting the amendment. it has been extremely helpful to my office in helping to understand how to accomplish what we are trying to do here. >> there are certain members that will be unhappy with what i am going to say, but i think it is important that we take this step. to assert that it is an emergency four wars that have been underway for years. to say that that is an unanticipated expenditures, i just do not believe it. we now know what the expense is , ongoing, month after month, can we predict with precision? no, we cannot. do we know that we are going to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars? yes, we do. i believe it is important to send the message that we are not just going to put this on the deck, that we are going to pay for it. i would say that senator feingo ld has come up with the responsib

there's also the end of the wars in iraq and afghanistan and some cuts to spending. it requires a calm discussion. it doesn't lend itself to buzz words or bumper stickers. host: and her concern about the inheritance tax? guest: i believe this year, it goes down to zero and then shoots right back up again. the healthcare reform bill would raise taxes the top tax rate would go above the percent. i agree that we want to think about the efficiency of our taxes the real problem going out to 2020 is not that taxes are relative to the gdp spending is 25% of gdp. at some point, you have to reign that in if you can't bring that in to reign it over a 10 year period. i dispair for how we are going to get on top of these problems. host: thank you for being on the program. guest: thank you very much. host: we are going to take a short break. when we come back, a discussion on food labeling and safety issues. you are watching the washington journal. we'll be right back. >> let's meet another winner from the c-span student cam winners. >> we'll meet an eighth grader. congratulation

back since world war two since every war african-americans have been against even though we support the military as a means of rising up the social mobility. the first iraq war was one exception we initially supported there was propaganda then we sort of turned against it. so i say that to save understanding who we are is the basis for what france called national consciousness or steven called black consciousness and this is not to be confused with nationalism. in nationalism is fundamentally a chauvinistic view of your community using of the sort of national, nationalistic barometer the same way you use race or gender or tried and so but consciousness is a very different thing. it is sort of an understanding where you are trying to get to and it's the opposite of reactionary thought. but fred hampton talked about as being reactionary fighting fire with fire, you don't fight fire with fire you fight with walter, racism with solidarity, you fight capitalistic system that uses people as tools. you fight that with a capitalist system that uses -- that turns the equation upside-down and uses the economy as an instrument of the people. so anyway, i say that t

we have had friends that have written the plans for iraq post war. secretary clinton has announced the secretary clinton doctrine is that we support an open internet around the world. this is to promote democracy and their own security. the question of what system we have in our country is a question of what kind of democracy do we want. freedom of speech is an exception. we want to make sure that a majority cannot determine questions of speech. the first amendment takes this in hand and uses it to strike down majority decisions. there are not laws that all of us would agree on. some of the indecency cases, i have written against the fairness doctrine. we can have a structural rules. the reverse sources of speakers. ownership limits. newspapers can't own broadcast stations in the same time. also access to other people's infrastructure. think about a common carrier rules. you can pick up the phone and call whoever you want and say whatever you want. the phone company cannot block or silence certain types of speech. network neutrality is an issue that h

because the men like us into an illegal war in iraq and was never prosecuted for that. no one has looked into that at all. so, we will not trust anyone until that gets settled. -- because the bush and mr. shen put us into an illegal war in the wreck. guest: yes, there are a variety of factors. the financial crisis of 2008 and the bill. one of the interesting things about republicans and their view -- it began with the bailout in the fall of 2008. people were very unhappy. host: is that the crux of this feeling toward the government that it is the economic issue? guest: i think you cannot minimize the importance of the economy. we see the trust go down. it is in times of economic stress. with nearly 10% unemployment, you see it right now. host: is there a comparable time? guest: in the early 1990's with trust this low, a bad economy, political partisanship. in 1994 it was a major election when the house and senate changed hands. caller: good morning. no, the american public has no trust in the government. host: bob, why do you think that? caller: because we have been lied

he was on tv doing an evaluation of the iraq-again stand war. his quoted to larry king was, he said, within 24 hours of leaving these countries will go back to civil war. they are involved in a religious war that has gone on for the last 304 hundred years. he said it was a waste of $2 trillion or $3 trillion over the last 10 years. a one of the points i really want to point out is use common sense. 80% of the people in prisons are power when the users. colombia produces cocaine, canada, california, mexico, use marijuana, but 91%, as prime minister blair said. 91% of the heroin produced worldwide comes from afghanistan. a and the situation is, this is a narco state. as a matter of fact, wasting all of the police money, breaking into homes in the ghettos and inner-city is, you are walking past 91% of the heroin. this should be burned. if this is destroying the lives of 2 million to 3 million, maybe 6 million children in the united states, in the eu, and in russia. torched the drugs. this argument -- they can't find another crop. let us say i am pr

in little more than a year, the war in afghanistan will beginning its second decade, and the war in iraq colleagues will support this amendment, regardless of whether they support or oppose these rules -- these wars, to strike an immediate balance and a clear need we all need region we all agree on, which is the need to keep our fiscal -- to strike an immediate balance and the goal we all agree on, which is to get our fiscal house in order. >> let me say that there are certain members that will be on have been -- on happy -- unhappy with what i am about to say, but i think it is important that we take this step to insert it is an emergency four wars that have been -- to ensure it is an emergency for wars that have been under way for years. to say that is an expenditure, i do not believe it. it is not unanticipated. we now know what the expenses, on going, month after month. can we predict with precision? no, we cannot. do we know we are going to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars? yes, we do, and i believe it is important to send a message we are not just going to put this on th

there's also the end of the wars in iraq and afghanistan and some cuts to spending. it requires a calm discussion. it doesn't lend itself to buzz words or bumper stickers. host: and her concern about the inheritance tax? guest: i believe this year, it goes down to zero and then shoots right back up again. the healthcare reform bill would raise taxes the top tax rate would go above the percent. i agree that we want to think about the efficiency of our taxes the real problem going out to 2020 is not that taxes are relative to the gdp spending is 25% of gdp. at some point, you have to reign that in if you can't bring that in to reign it over a 10 year period. i dispair for how >> coming up sunday on "washington journal," all looked at -- we look at issues with alexander heffner, jonathan strong, stuart pratt, and stephen wayne. this year's studentcam competition asked students to deal with strength and challenges that we're facing. here is one of the third-place winners. ♪ ["lean on me" playing] >> some time soon approximately 1.7 million american soldiers will be retur

iraq, and it's unclear to me with that relationship is clear to be. when saddam was in power, the saudis and iraq actually were quite close and falls on the same side and the iran-iraq war, and so that relationship will evolves over time. where you see the device is lebanon. very early on their word sunnis in lebanon who joined the jihadists and surgeons, whenever you want to call them inside iraq, and they felt it was their place to go and fight and what they were fighting for was sunni hegemony in the region. not, again, not in the mosque but as a political battle. and there were many of them who went to iraq and were trained in urban warfare and then came home. and as you know, this actually created a crisis in light of lebanon. there was a group called taha al-isam. the pentagon from syria into northern lebanon and there was a clash in the country over this. i spoke to a sunni imam whose job it was to bring these young men who now were in jail some of them back into a nonviolent way to express their views. but the thing he noted about all of the people who were on the terrorism wing in a lebanese present is they were all sunnis. and this bothered him greatly. how is

congressional district before he moved to the senate, when he was down the hall from me, he remembers as i do as we oppose the war in iraq, that the republicans who supported it, all but i believe three in the house and one in the senate, didn't think then about paying for that war. they didn't think about what this meant to the cost -- the cost to their children and grandchildren. when they passed -- when we were both in the house, the presiding officer, senator udall and i from colorado, they didn't think about when we passed the medicare giveaway to the drug and insurance companies which senator udall and i -- then congressman udall and i opposed, they didn't say anything about paying for it in those days. they just added it to the credit card for our children and our grandchildren, and when they gave tax cuts to the richest americans, billions and -- excuse me, hundreds of billions of dollars over ten years to the wealthiest americans, that was just added to the credit card and the future. it's only now when it's unemployed workers, people whose lifestyle, people whose quality of life isn't close to the quality of li

investor into iraq it's unclear to me what that relationship is going to be when saddam hussein was in power the saudis and iraq actually were quite close and fought on the same side in the iran-iraq war. so that relationship will evolves over time. where you really see the divide is in lebanon. very early on there were sunnis in lebanon who joined the jihadist insurgents but everyone to call them inside iraq and they felt that it was their place to go and fight and what they were fighting for was sunni hegemony in the region. again, not in the mosque but as a political battle and there were many of the who went to iraq who were trained in urban warfare and then came home. then as you know this created a crisis in lebanon. there was a group called fatah al-islam and there was a clash in the country over this. i spoke to a sunni imam whose job it was to bring these young men who were now in jail some of them back into a nonviolent way to express their views but the thing that he noted about all of the people who were on the terrorism wing and a lebanese prison is they were all sunnis and this bothered him greatly. how is it possible that it is only us that are considered terrorists in